289—108 
SIWALIK AND NARBADA PROBOSOIDIA. 
E. hysudricus have simpler molars than those of the Indian elephant, and that any 
descent from these forms would he in the order of regular progressive development . 
With regard to the first named species, I do not think that the Indian elephan^ 
could he descended from it, because the Narbada elephant lived to a very recent 
date in India, and because of its very peculiarly shaped skull. E. hysudricus^ on the 
other hand, lived at an earlier period, and has a skull which only requires a little 
modification to bring it to that of the Indian elephant. It must also he remem- 
bered that in Northern India, where all the Siwalik elephants lived, we have (with 
one or two possible exceptions) no record of the animals which lived subsequently 
to the Siwahk (Pliocene) period, and we have therefore no means of saying whether 
E. hysudricus then became extinct, or whether it lived on and became developed 
into a more specialized form. I do not put forward these suggestions as having 
any certainty, hut merely as points for consideration before the two species can he 
classed together. I may add that in the discussion which followed the reading of 
Professor Dawkins’ paper. Professor L. Adams expressed his opinion that E. primi- 
genius and E. indicus were decidedly distinct, hut that E. americanus {columbi), 
E. armeniacus, and E. indicus might possibly he the same species. 
The growing tendency which there appears to be among mammahan palae- 
ontologists to take Httle heed of more or less minute points of difference, and to 
unite distinguishable forms under one species, appears to me to he a retrograde 
movement, which is especially confusing to the geologist, as it deprives him of all 
assistance in identifying strata by their included remains. The identity of the Indian 
elephant and the mammoth is no new idea, hut was originally adopted by De Blain- 
ville,^ who said that he could not distinguish between the two. The elaborate 
labours of Palconer subsequently showed the points which distinguish the mammoth 
from other allied elephants, labours which seem in a fair way of being disregarded 
by modern writers. 
References to non-Indian species oe fossil Proboscidia.^ 
Dinotherium giganteum. 
Kaup : “ Ossements Fossiles des Mammiferes qui se trouvent au Museum grand-ducal de Darmstadt, 
Darmstadt, 1832. 
Dinotherium honigii. 
Kaup ; Art. 15, pp. 5 — 14. 
Meyer : Jahrbucli, 1831, p. 296, 1836, p. 59. 
{D. havaricum). 
Mastodon andium. 
“ Hugh Falconer, Palaeontological Memoirs of the late, ” by C. Murchison, London, 1868, Vol. I 
p. 99, II, p. 14. 
1 “ Osteographie” des Elephants, p. 222. 
* This list of references is not meant to make the least approach to a complete bibliography of the fossil Proboscidia, but 
is merely intended to enable the reader to make comparisons between the Indian species figured in this volume with the non- 
Indian species. . 
